In the intricate world of AI policy, where every decision has far-reaching implications, a charity's role in shaping Australia's approach to AI and copyright has sparked intense debate. Good Ancestors, a charity with a mission to safeguard the interests of future generations, has found itself at the center of a storm, accused of being a mouthpiece for big tech. But is this accusation fair? And what does it reveal about the complex relationship between philanthropy, policy, and the tech industry?
The Charity's Mission and Its Critics
Good Ancestors, founded in 2022, aims to guide Australia's leaders in making decisions that benefit future generations. With a focus on AI safety and pandemic prevention, the charity has emerged as a key player in Australia's AI policy debate. However, its funding lineage has raised eyebrows among arts and rightsholder groups, who question whether the charity is truly independent or merely a front for the interests of its donors.
The charity's funding comes from sources with deep ties to the tech industry. In 2024, Good Ancestors received $243,000 from the Survival and Flourishing Fund, primarily backed by Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, who also led Anthropic's $125 million Series A funding round in 2021. This connection raises concerns about the charity's impartiality, especially given its role in shaping AI policy.
Adding to the controversy, Good Ancestors received $243,000 from Open Philanthropy, now known as Coefficient Giving, in December 2024. Coefficient Giving was co-founded by Holden Karnofsky, who served as its CEO until April 2024 and joined Anthropic in January 2025. Karnofsky is married to Anthropic president and co-founder Daniela Amodei, further blurring the lines between philanthropy and the tech industry.
The AI Training Permit Proposal
Good Ancestors' most recent move has been the circulation of a consultation paper proposing an 'AI Training Permit'. This permit would allow companies to train AI models in Australia without facing copyright restrictions, in exchange for a tiered fee and compliance with the National Data Centre Expectations. The proposal has been met with skepticism by arts and rightsholder groups, who argue that it benefits big tech at the expense of Australian creators.
Claire Pullen, CEO of the Australian Writers' Guild, believes that Good Ancestors is advocating for a proposal that aligns with the interests of its donors, rather than the broader public interest. She argues that the proposal fails to address the issue of foreign companies stealing from Australian creators, and instead promotes a solution that benefits big tech.
The Lobbying Tactics at Play
The use of philanthropic networks to influence regulation is not new. Nicholas Pickard, executive director of public affairs at music rights body APRA AMCOS, describes it as one of the oldest plays in the corporate lobbying book. However, the question remains: is this a legitimate form of advocacy, or is it a subtle form of astroturfing?
Good Ancestors' chief executive, Greg Sadler, rejects the accusation that the charity is acting in the interests of AI companies. He argues that the charity's positions are formed independently and that the grants were won through open application processes. However, the close ties between the charity's donors and the tech industry cannot be ignored.
The Broader Implications
The debate surrounding Good Ancestors highlights the complex relationship between philanthropy, policy, and the tech industry. It raises questions about the independence of charities and the potential for philanthropic networks to influence regulation in ways that benefit the tech industry.
In my opinion, the controversy surrounding Good Ancestors is a wake-up call for the tech industry. It highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of philanthropic networks to influence policy. As the tech industry continues to grow and shape our world, it is crucial that we ensure that the interests of all stakeholders, including creators and the public, are represented and protected.
The Way Forward
The debate surrounding Good Ancestors is far from over. As Australia continues to grapple with the implications of AI and copyright, it is crucial that all stakeholders, including charities, policymakers, and the tech industry, work together to find solutions that benefit the broader public interest. In my view, this requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and collaboration.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Good Ancestors is a complex and multifaceted issue that highlights the challenges and opportunities inherent in the relationship between philanthropy, policy, and the tech industry. As we navigate this challenging terrain, it is crucial that we remain vigilant and committed to finding solutions that benefit the broader public interest.
